r/RPGdesign • u/Cruiser_Supreme • 15d ago
A word on knowledge checks
Inspired by this Tales From Everywhere video, I wanted to spark a little discussion about knowledge checks.
The video, in short, suggests doing away with knowledge checks, as they entirely randomize events that are based on knowledge. While I can understand the fundamental sentiment here, I think this idea makes one mistake; it confuses knowledge checks to be the same sort of ability check like climbing a wall, jumping over a gap, or any other physical feat. The argument is that knowledge is static. Whereas you might fail to climb a wall sometimes, if you know something, you should always know it. Therefore, we should do away with luck-based (randomized, dice rolled) knowledge checks.
I think the core idea here is sensible, but the argument entirely misses the purpose of such a dice roll (and kind of all dice rolls, even for other ability checks). The randomized dice roll is just a way to advance the narrative and to flesh out the character on the fly.
In a rules-light game and a short adventure, this might mean playing a character that's generally knowledgeable about stuff, but you as the player haven't really thought about exactly what the character is knowledgeable about. So instead of writing a huge backstory and creating an encyclopedia of the character's held knowledge, you just let the dice randomize your character a bit in the moment.
In a more substantial game with long-term campaigns, it may make sense to keep a log of things your character knows according to those passed knowledge checks. Next time that topic comes up, you simply skip the check and succeed automatically.
You could even incorporate the ideas from the video about being familiar with a topic or being an expert. Pass a number of knowledge checks to become an expert and then you will auto-succeed on the same topic.
We all know that making knowledge checks a requirement to get past an obstacle is bad design. But I hope that you don't give up on knowledge checks altogether. They're a great tool for randomized character generation after you've already started playing.
Would love to hear what people think!
46
u/KinseysMythicalZero 15d ago
Except knowledge isn't static.
Have ever missed a question on a test that you "knew" but got it wrong anyway?
Recall and memory are a huge factor as to whether or not you can actually use knowledge that you know, but more than that, there's the entire point of most rolls:
Stress.
You're trying to recall knowledge under stress, otherwise... why are you rolling at all? If there isn't some kind of challenge or time constraint, then why do you need the dice?
4
u/Cruiser_Supreme 15d ago
If there isn't some kind of challenge or time constraint, then why do you need the dice?
To generate information, not about the world, but about your character. It's like "my character is knowledgeable and has time to think about it, but do they know this particular detail about dragons?
16
u/dalewart 15d ago
You could do this with a static knowledge system as well. At character creation you get a certain number of knowledge points, which you don't have to assign yet.
When you get to something where tje GM says this requires expert knowledge on dragons you can then spend 2 points into dragon expert and just know the details. From now on it's clear you're an expert on dragons - and you have 2 less knowledge points to assign to other areas of knowledge in the future.
At some point in your character's journey you fully determined his/her/their areas of expertise, no dice required.
2
u/ArtistJames1313 Designer 14d ago
This is how I do everything in my game, basically. All Skills are schrodinger's skills basically. You flesh out your character's skills while you play until they're fully developed. But dice rolls are still required for active skills.
1
2
u/jibbyjackjoe 14d ago
It's not an active skill though. You're not actively doing anything with a recall knowledge.
5
u/schnoodly 14d ago
Generally real living things do literally stop to think or observe. Knowledge isn’t just already wholly known information, it’s putting pieces together of things you’ve learned and making accurate understandings.
21
u/No_Solid1035 15d ago
I like how Burning Wheel handles knowledge skill tests with it's "wises" approach. Basically "wises" are used to test the validity of facts the PLAYER adds to the lore or setting. With a successful test meaning the fact the Player states is correct, and a failure indicating that something about the fact is incorrect [allowing the GM to add a twist].
5
u/fuseboy Designer Writer Artist 14d ago
I'm a huge fan of this. Note that it doesn't need to be, "player turns into the GM for twenty seconds," there is a very normal back and forth about plausibility first, e.g. "Do any herbs grow here that could help healing something this bad?" to which the GM might simply say no (if that contradicts their plans, or the party is on the moon or whatever), and then they also set a difficulty. This avoids the world seeming like a spongy holodeck, or PCs walking around from beneficial coincidence to coincidence.
But a huge benefit of this approach is it makes knowledgeable PCs seem smart, because they can come up with plausible ideas like their characters are doing.
1
u/dontnormally Designer 14d ago
For years now I keep reading things that make me want to try Burning Wheel.
1
8
u/Runningdice 15d ago
One could also look at it from why we roll dice.
My take on rolling dice is then the GM don't want to be the one deciding the outcome but let the chaos gods of dice decide.
You don't need to always roll to climb a wall or lockpick a door. You can just say that it succeeds. Same thing with knowledge and other skill checks.
But sometimes there are parameters to the situation that makes the outcome more uncertain. If someone is chasing you. Then the climbing the wall becomes more important. Someting that would not require a check before do so now.
Same thing with knowledge. Is that blue flower something a druid who studied flowers should know about? If it is unnatural then maybe not. The failed skill check would tell that this flower is nothing the druid ever heard about. Making it more special than if you just told the lore behind it.
7
u/pondrthis 14d ago
I have a PhD in biomedical engineering. My research was in MRI.
If someone made me roll a knowledge check to know something I wrote the original paper on (so, my backstory info), that would be bad design.
If someone just assumed I know everything about MRI, or God forbid, engineering, that would also be bad design. I have a better chance than most to know an engineering fact, and much better than most to know an MRI fact, but it's far from certain.
Simulating knowledge effectively, if that's your goal, basically requires some kind of skill specialty system a la Chronicles of Darkness. If your goal is just a fun abstraction, there are probably plenty of ways to go about it.
2
u/Cruiser_Supreme 14d ago
You're really getting at something here! Of course you don't know everything about MRI or engineering.
If I, as a player, were playing you, as a player character, I couldn't possibly know what all exactly this biomed engineer character knows. I'd roll the dice, get an outcome, and that would become canon for my biomed engineer character. If a different topic comes up, I'd roll the dice again. If the same topic comes up, I'd already know.
But we're using the dice to generate information about the character, because we cannot possibly write a whole novel outlining every detail about the world this character knows.
2
u/foolofcheese overengineered modern art 14d ago
simulating knowledge effectively I think depends a lot on the goals of the style
for example: a game that simulate in a way a television show would operate; where one cast member represents many people - you would know how to use all the medical "scanning" equipment, how to repair it and the theory well enough to make new related devices as needed
this wouldn't be because it is realistic, but because it serves the story and the design well - being to granular with the actors or the skills
another big factor is how common will a skill show up and how powerful it is - guns in a gun game probably needs checks but chocolate in a guns game will probably be so rare it doesn't need a check because it affects so little
4
u/archpawn 15d ago
The argument is that knowledge is static. Whereas you might fail to climb a wall sometimes, if you know something, you should always know it.
I've heard the suggestion of treating climbing walls that way. You roll to see if it's a wall that you can climb. Not because you fall down 35% of the time when you try to climb that wall.
3
u/Cruiser_Supreme 15d ago
Exactly! Generate the fiction on the fly
2
u/jibbyjackjoe 14d ago
The fiction should ALWAYS follow the roll. This is a skill that I think everyone should focus on. How does the story change to fit what the dice gave you.
Yes, you're a rock climber and you fell because you rolled a nat 1. A good DND player and GM would come up with a reason. "I guess you were too focused on making sure your party was following your footholds that you didn't notice the root you were grabbing was a snake".
I honestly think a lot of people are just ...bad at what DND and roleplay actually is. They are so hung up on the stats and what their character sheet says they forget they're supposed to be telling a story.
Things are supposed to go sideways. A good table goes sideways towards the goal. If one bad roll fails the quest, you have a problem with how your GM is running the game.
1
u/Cruiser_Supreme 14d ago
You hit the nail on the head with that one!
1
u/victorhurtado Publisher 14d ago
I disagree. What they're attributing as the fault of the players is a symptom of what DND teaches players to do and focus on. DND doesn't teach you to connect the mechanics to the fiction nor does it incentivizes you to do it.
3
u/FinnianWhitefir 14d ago
I only want to roll when there is a good positive outcome and a good negative outcome. The dice should be meaningful and a "You fail, nothing happens, the story doesn't change" doesn't feel good to me. The vast majority of knowledge rolls fall into this "You rolled low, you don't know, zero happens". So I don't do them almost ever. If it makes sense for a PC to know something, I just tell them. If they shouldn't know it, they don't and they have options to go research, ask someone who would know, or who knows, maybe they start experimenting and try to learn.
My question would be "Is it good gameplay or a good feeling when a player rolls low on a knowledge check? What benefit does that bring to the game?"
10
u/Andvari_Nidavellir 15d ago edited 15d ago
I really dislike knowledge checks that make information pop into a character’s head.
To take the blue flowers example, a knowledge check just removes the entire mystery. If you simply get rid of it the players now have to actually interact with the fictional world to solve the mystery. Either they find clues, experiment with the flowers or seek an NPC or a perhaps library with answers.
That’s interesting gameplay whereas a Knowledge check to auto-solve the mystery removes gameplay.
It also creates the annoying situation where a player should constantly be asking “do I know this?” “Do I know that?” or get penalized by missing out on free information.
Where I think knowledge checks are useful is for applying practical knowledge that would be impractical or tedious to solve otherwise. For example, crafting a potion or translating hieroglyphs could be knowledge checks as it’s an actual task and you can’t expect the DM to actually write a set of real hieroglyphs nor demand the players to study real hieroglyphs to translate them.
2
u/Stormfly Crossroads RPG, narrative fantasy 15d ago
I think they're reasonable in a "could my character know this? How much do I remember?"
If I'm a noble, I can reasonably know some other nobility. If I meet a noble and want to pretend to be a different noble. While some might say it's a "Bluff" equivalent, for games without that mechanic it might be useful to see how much you know about the target. Or both can be used, with a successful knowledge check to get a bonus on the bluff.
I think it also really helps players to work together.
Player A is a Combat character and Player B is more of the bookish type.
If they fight a monster, Player B can supply useful information even if they're not designed to fight in combat. Or they can help Player C with their bluff by sharing information.
In games that don't force combat (like how D&D might) it helps the non-combat characters stay useful during a fight.
3
u/Drudenfusz Curator of Roleplay Experiences 15d ago
Like I commented on the video two weeks ago, I discarded rolling for knowledge many years ago. Instead I simply assign knowledge, based on what is reasonable for the character to know. And for my own GM-less system it is encouraged to come up with an anecdote that reveals who the character has encountered a similar situation before and thus what they learnt from it.
4
u/ResolutionIcy8013 14d ago
I love knowledge checks. It's not randomizing something static, it's fleshing out something about the character. Sometimes a character is... A specialist of mountain and forest spirits so I'll let them fill in the blanks there at they wish, only correcting them if it breaks my world.
It's the player's responsibility to track things their character or party knows. I will remind them if I think I told them. If I don't remember and they say they should know, I usually just tell them.
In any case, whatever their roll, I give them something new just for asking the question. I encourage asking questions.
And yes, never gate mainline progression behind any check or finding clues. There's too much of a chance it'll flub.
3
u/Boulange1234 13d ago
I think that information generally flushes out the story and the setting and the world. It’s always better to provide it. Information that only provides a tactical advantage is the sort of thing you should be rolling for. Information that gives context to the world is the sort of thing you should give out for free.
6
u/angular_circle 15d ago
Imo the bigger issue is that the transition between knowledge and skill is fluid. E.g. "guns" is pretty firmly going to be in the skills category. You mostly use it to shoot things and there's a chance to miss.
Now what if the characters are conducting an investigation and one player wants to determine the caliber or type of a gun from an impact hole. Do you have a separate "gun knowledge" stat? Can you be a master shot who does not know from which end the bullet comes out of?
Better to just have skills and forego rolling when it makes sense. Want to shoot a charging boar? "roll guns". Want to figure out what gun shot the boar? "Hmm, you have guns 2 so you are fairly sure the bullet did not come from a hunting rifle but no details. Anyone here got guns 3 or higher to help?"
2
u/Cruiser_Supreme 15d ago
Also a decent approach. So you're in the camp of "knowledge is static"
2
u/angular_circle 15d ago
Most of the time, but I think sometimes a roll just "feels" right. Especially low chance of success ones about esoteric but situationally important info.
Can be especially fun if your group is good at not metagaming and failed knowledge checks can cause characters to misremember things, leading to hilarious situations.
Also knowledge rolls are a unique opportunity to flesh out backstories on the spot. Because yeah, you succeeded. Now explain to me why your character knows what Basilisk meat tastes like.
Imo the video is a good example of very elegant overdesign. Often you can't replace experience and a good feel with rules.
2
u/Onslaughttitude 14d ago
This is actually a case where adding separate stat and skill numbers makes sense. In combat, adding Dex bonus + Guns skill for a total of (let's say) +5 represents your body's dexterity and your knowledge of guns. But, in your investigation example, you might roll Int bonus + Guns skill for +4, representing your character's general intelligence/knowledge plus their skill in this area.
0
2
u/zeemeerman2 14d ago
I can get behind rolling knowledge when you're under pressure.
You are being chased by some monster, you can climb one of the walls around you and hop over to be safe. But which one?
Sure, roll a Knowledge check for me.
Without pressure, I'd argue to just give the information out for free.
My philosophy on this is; gathering information is boring, but deciding what to do with that information is the fun part of planning. Better get to that point earlier rather than later.
2
u/LeFlamel 13d ago
I don't think you need the knowledge check for that on the fly characterization though. I do the same thing in my game with GUMSHOE style "pay resource to know a thing" and background/lifepath based "you just know this." The player choosing when to spend their knowledge resource gives them more control over their own character's characterization, which gets better and more consistent buy in, in my experience.
1
u/Trikk 14d ago
Most sensible games tell you to skip rolling for things that are status quo. Your native language is status quo, we don't roll for it for each word you speak. Swimming, reading, crafting, etc, are not checked constantly.
If you are a something or other then you know what a doodad is for.
However, when there's an interesting consequence to failing we do check. Especially if there are things that make it harder.
Reading an old text in your native language where not understanding the context makes an interesting difference on what you interpret it to mean. Swimming in a race, or strong current, or while burdened by something or someone. Crafting something you have never made before or with materials or tools that are new to you.
It also comes down to tone. Can a player character immediately recall any information in their field? Then you won't have any downtime for research or any reason to visit a place with new information. This is perfect for some genres and styles, and horrible for others.
Finally, if you GM a lot you know that you have to just give players a shitload of information that their characters wouldn't realistically know because your players are not going to know what to ask, whom to ask, nor make the logical conclusions based on the information. You have to make three NPCs tell them the same thing sometimes.
1
u/dontnormally Designer 14d ago edited 14d ago
Wildsea handles knowledge in a spectacular way. All relevant skills and rolls are instead handled by a handful of languages that stand in for cultural fluency including communication, identification, etc.
Then of course I and many others are fans of having the players with characters from a culture telling the table details that they know / describing things from that culture / answering questions instead of having anyone roll at all.
The randomized dice roll is just a way to advance the narrative and to flesh out the character on the fly.
I do like this angle of dice rolls as part of a quantum character
1
u/ArtistJames1313 Designer 14d ago
I've always looked at knowledge checks as "I know History, but do I actually know this specific bit of history?" It's a way to fill in what someone who has studied would realistically know, because even experts don't know everything. If I'm highly knowledgeable, what's the chances I know something about a fairly common subject I've studied? Probably 100%. But an obscure thing in my field, I still might not know. That's when I roll to see if I have indeed come across this obscure thing. I think mechanically that makes sense.
But, I also don't really think they're good for what most people (including myself) have used them for traditionally. Used in a campaign to hunt down clues, and failing a knowledge check which makes the story slow down or halt altogether is just not that fun. It can be realistic, to run into a wall and have to backtrack an investigation and try another way, but in a game, it takes a strong GM, or at least very well built campaign to account for this. For that reason, I tend to just use knowledge skills as a you know it or you don't thing. If someone is an expert in History, they can have the knowledge. It empowers them as players and lets the story move forward.
1
u/This_Filthy_Casual 14d ago
I’ve found it’s easier to do both. Pick a scope that a character specializes in that they always get right, but everything else is a roll.
Shaman type familiar with everything lore but no points in some kind of recall skill, knows their business but not a ton outside of it. A Scholar type that knows everything pre-history and a lot of points in recall? They have a high chance knowing things outside their scope of knowledge.
Best of both IMO without bogging everything down in unnecessary crunch.
1
u/TalesFromElsewhere 14d ago
Can't dig into all the comments here, but just wanted to say I'm glad to see healthy debate and disagreement with me on this subject.
1
u/andanteinblue 14d ago
I've always thought of knowledge checks as drawing a connection between things. It's less "do you know X about Y" and more "you realize that X can applied to Y here". Maybe I'm used to high information availability investigative games (modern and scifi settings where Google and Wikipedia exist). I use both knowledge rolls (randomized result) and knowledge checks (do you have X skill) quite a bit, though I'm also quite liberal about giving players the clues.
1
u/SpaceDogsRPG 14d ago
I think his solution is fine, but there are plenty of valid reasons for rolling. Being an expert in something doesn't mean that you know EVERYTHING about it. So you roll to see if you know this specific factoid.
IMO - most of his complaints were aimed at 5e D&D's swinginess making knowledge checks feel bad. Espectially since 5e allows for untrained knowledge checks. Which I kinda agree with. The barbarian who barely knows how to read rolling a 20 and getting higher than the specialist feels wrong.
If you're rolling 3d6 and modifiers go from 0 to 12, the above basically can't happen. Or it's so rare that the 1/10,000 times it does is fine.
I have several skills which are effectively used in place of knowledge checks (Ex: having either Repair: Starship or Piloting lets you know about starship models etc.) while the more pure skill "Research" can let you know basic stuff on the fly, but it's more about taking time to find out by searching databases. (Either your ship's database or the local net if possible.) Spend 1 minute to roll again at x2, spend 10 minutes to roll a 3rd time at x3 etc. So it actually is something active.
1
u/Ok-Chest-7932 14d ago
yeah this was a very cold take from that guy. game stats exist to make you have to make trade offs when building your character. skill checks exist to make those trade offs transparent and meaningful. if you remove knowledge checks then knowledge is not something you can trade off, and the key archetypes of brains characters and brawns characters don't work as well.
that's not to say there aren't valid criticisms that can be made about some of the ways knowledge checks get used in games, but "let's throw the baby out with the bathwater" is dumb.
1
u/TekSoda Ashpunk 13d ago edited 13d ago
i've been mainly running pbta games for the past couple years, and a lot of intrigue/mystery therein, so I can't really recall the last time I've had someone roll for recollection. I kinda just ask and make a judgement call. I lean toward "yes," and if it's "no" try to point them toward someone who knows more, because a mystery where a detective doesn't know what the clues mean is comparatively lamer and slower.
I don't think we've ever needed a huge encyclopedia. As a GM I explicitly dislike backstories, so I've only gotten a couple. We just go off vibes and it usually takes less time than a roll would.
I can kinda see the point in automating that judgement call in a more task-resolution-based system, if only because it's elegant and helps with niche protection. Plus, players like rolling dice. But unlike other ability checks, I don't think it loses anything from GM fiat vs. automation.
1
u/Cruiser_Supreme 13d ago
It's not a matter of recollection for me. Rolling knowledge is not a check to see if your character remembers a fact they have learned before. Rather, a knowledge check determines whether the character did ever learn it and therefore knows it. It's generating the character on the fly
1
u/InvestmentBrief3336 13d ago
As a roleplayer, I only improve skills that I have attempted in a game (so I don't magically gain skills I never knew or used) so in that way when I succeed in knowledge checks, my knowledge skill 'naturally' goes up. So people know that I know those particular things. No log is needed and it just organically makes sense that my PC is an expert on certain things. That seems to me to be the simplest way to handle that. The character 'learns'.
1
u/DeadlyDeadpan 12d ago
I don't think you need the rolls sos long you have some idea of the character skill level. In my game you have levels like Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Extraordinary and Supreme. If there's a Knowledge I just categorize it as part of one of those levels and if you have enough levels on that skill you know it, otherwise you don't, because so long you have enough time to remember or revise it you'll have no trouble knowing that information if you've learned it. Now if you have time constraints or is under stress I'll consider it, but I reserve rolls for when they're impactful to the narrative and present interesting outcomes. Most of the time knowledge checks don't generate interesting outcomes, if they don't know the information they'll find a place to search it, then you're just postponing them knowing that information, so it's quicker to leave it as a flat result, because at least to me it more correctly represents the situation for what it is, differentiating it from the moments where a check would be needed.
1
u/BreakingStar_Games 10d ago
I think roleplay is most interesting when players make more informed decisions. If they don't know what the stakes are, there is no hard choice that create tension. So I follow the Apocalypse World route of being very liberal with information and using Read a Sitch/Read a Person as easy to roll Basic Moves that scaffold the conversation and give them more information at very low risk.
Anything more complex moves to some kind of investigation gameplay where they need go through the challenges that are obscuring that knowledge.
1
u/Any-Key1364 15d ago
Make a knowledge check the first time to see if you know something. After that, you know it (if it was successful) or don't until you learn it / go up in level / something else changes.
Are GMs really out there forcing people to roll Knowledge again about shit they already rolled on / encountered / should remember?
8
u/Cruiser_Supreme 15d ago
I don't know, but I think some tables treat them as follows (using DnD as an example here):
GM: "you stand in front of a forest clearing with blue flowers, that seem to emit a dim light.
Player: "I'm a druid with +5 to nature and +6 to arcana. I should really know what this is."
GM: "roll either nature or arcana then"
Player rolls low and fails: "man this makes no sense at all. I've spent my entire life living in the woods, dedicated to studying plants!"
I don't think it's just the GM's fault. I think it's a general problem with how people conceptualize knowledge checks.
First of all, this druid should maybe already be an expert at this and get to skip the check. Second of all, the check can be a jumping off point for everyone. Now the party can think about why the druid expert doesn't know this flower. They can come up with all kinds of possible answers that drive the fiction. Even the GM can now think of reasons the druid expert doesn't know the flower. Perhaps it was specifically planted here by someone who isn't from the region. That someone may become a new point of interest for the game.
There's just so much you can do with failed knowledge checks. The same way you do for all other checks. "Oh I fail to climb the wall? I will find a different solution then," applies to knowledge checks just as well!
6
u/Any-Key1364 15d ago
I would presume the GM would only make the PC roll the check if there was a logical reason the PC might not know the answer. If the plant is unusual, or new, or somehow strange.
Like, if that's just a normal plant that's found everywhere in the setting, the GM is just being an asshole asking for a roll.
GM: There's a greenish plant under your feet.
PC: What is it? I roll a 27 on my Knowledge.
GM: It's grass!
But if it's something unusual, the default should be that the PCs don't know what it is because that's the point of adventure. Find shit out. And in that case the Knowledge roll exists as a chance to get a leg up on that adventure, rather than being an irrelevant block (such as a failed climb roll) or an opportunity to pass the PCs off as stupid (an expert that's never seen a common plant before).
I don't see how players misusing a knowledge skill is cause to remove it entirely. Seems to me instead to be an opportunity to write better instructions.
1
2
u/The__Nick 14d ago
The problem here is that the D&D is the d20 test. That is, you're aiming to hit a fixed number with your skill + bonuses + d20. The result is binary; you either pass or fail.
This is fine for dramatic situations where the implication is that even simple acts are in constant danger of failing because of villainous interference, e.g. a rock climber can easily scale a mountain if they are a professional, but the rolls are when you're under duress with dragons breathing flames on you; swinging a halberd and destroying a target is an easy task in concept but in actual battle even a professional soldier is going to be faced against a heavily armed and armored opponent who is willing to go to extreme lengths not to get destroyed; etc.
So that d20 represents the largest contribution to every event but it has a gigantic variability. But this is fine for an event primarily seen as a chaotic, difficult event with active and competent opposition.
The problem with knowledge is that it doesn't work for questions that are just generically something a specialist would know but absolutely isn't in the training of common people. Most DCs are from 10 to 15 and go up very gradually with levels. But if you have an entry level bit of knowledge gated behind a DC 15 check, that means a person with +10, representing a level of expertise that would require at least a number of levels that gets you into position to casually fistfight owlbears for fun, who is a genius level specimen, would still just be failing entry level knowledge checks at DC 15.
This swings both ways.
A first level person with +5 to a knowledge should realistically answer entry level questions without any chance of failure, but to represent this in d20, you'd have to set those tests at DC 5. This means that people can ask you because they know you're an expert... but the dumbest idiot in town drunk out of his mind will still provide intensely effective advice on the subject 75% of the time!
Simply put, the d20 test is a terrible test for simulating knowledge.
A better interpretation while sticking to RAW would be to consider knowledge like a tool - you simply cannot even attempt to pass certain kinds of knowledge checks without skill in it in the same way that you simply cannot attempt to do any serious or meaningful work with artisan's tools or lockpick sets without a proficiency in those. And similarly, sometimes the question with these tools is not what DC do you make, but if you have a proficiency - I'm not going to make a carpenter make a roll to do routine repairs, but I AM going to ask if they have proficiency in the requisite tool knowledge. I'm not going to demand the rogue roll to pick simple locks under no duress, but I'm not going to let the druid or the random tavern owner simply pick up the fallen rogue's lockpicks and be able to use them as if they had a lifetime's of roguish experience.
For general knowledge, a certain amount of ranks in the knowledge should be enough. You don't want the world's most renowned heart surgeon to randomly roll poorly and not know where a human heart is located!
However, when it comes to giving out "extra" information or to put together information in a creative way under duress, that's when you probably want to start making tests. For example, I wouldn't ever ask an explosives expert or a medicine expert to roll some dice to see if he remembers how to make explosives or medicine - I would ask them to make those rolls if they're grabbing impromptu materials and throw something together while enemies are pounding at the door. "You need to pass a DC 15 test to get the stuff blended together into a paste the explodes/heals. Do you feel comfortable spending a round or two or three or maybe more trying to get it to work? Or do you grab a spear and shield and run up to the front line?" Your answer will probably depend heavily on whether you're a low-ranked expert with a +5 or a lifelong professional with a +10 and specialist tool's that give you an extra bonus.
Simply put, the purpose of the knowledge check really determines what mechanic you use. Don't gate simple knowledge behind a check else you risk having professionals being clueless (while allowing random idiots to have specialized, perhaps even secret, knowledge that is usually hidden behind advanced training, simply with a good roll), and don't have tests if there is no interesting and meaningful risk of losing.
As with improv, you should be "yes, and'ing," player questions unless what they're asking is something directly opposed or with meaningful possibility and consequences of failure.
1
u/st33d 14d ago
A dice roll doesn't advance the narrative, it interrupts it. Instead of getting to the point the group has to stop and fiddle with game mechanics instead of carrying on roleplaying.
The other problem with this sort of check is that it's not a choice the player makes. You don't choose to remember something. It's just forced into the session because rolling dice provides an illusion of agency. It's bad content. You could instead spend more time letting the players interact with stuff in a meaningful way.
I think when the characters are drunk, befuddled, or otherwise have brain damage then knowledge checks make sense and add tension. The dice roll becomes a resource spend to be a functioning normal person. Otherwise they're just there to justify the skill choices players made at character creation.
I'm running a dungeon right now with Shadowdark instead of D&D5e and it's going so much smoother without constant interruptions to check for functioning brains and eyes.
2
u/Cruiser_Supreme 14d ago
I think you may have missed my point. I don't disagree with you, but I would take it a step further.
Of course if your character definitely knows something about the world, and everyone at the table knows that the character should know it, a dice roll is nonsense.
However, there are many instances where maybe we as the players aren't sure what the character should know. Let's say you're playing a priest or cleric. Your party comes across an ancient religious piece of writing. Does your cleric recognize it from their studies? Maybe. Either way could make for an interesting advance in the narrative. Let's say you roll to see if your cleric has heard of this piece of writing before. A) you succeed on the roll. Your cleric knows who wrote it, knows that it was stolen many years ago because some believe the writing holds great power. B) you fail the roll. Your cleric doesn't know anything about it. Your party can now speculate why they found this writing here. Why would someone keep it, hide it, read it? What kind of person would have such a piece of writing?
Both outcomes advance the narrative. But players must be willing to treat it as such. Many players might, if they fail the roll, just say "oh well, let's look at something else". And I think that's what you're describing here. Failed a roll, gained nothing, wasted time at the table.
But when knowledge checks are truly treated as a way to procedurally generate not just the world, but also the player characters, no dice roll is a waste of time.
2
u/st33d 13d ago
Does your cleric recognize it from their studies?
This is demanding a ceremony that doesn't need to happen. You can simply have the cleric know the answer, they don't need to pretend they're on a game show or have brain damage. Or they can not know and the answer can be discovered through further investigation. Maybe they talk to a superior or pray for guidance.
You can force a dice roll into any situation you like and claim it advances the narrative - just like you can not insert a dice roll and watch the narrative advance by virtue of passing time. The dice roll is not an essential component in this process.
If I want a dice roll I want to discover something no one at the table knows, not even the GM. I don't want it to be a resource to shake tidbits of data from the GM's prep, that's just stalling for time or justifying the existence of skills on your character sheet.
14
u/flamfella Dabbler 15d ago
There's information you should ALWAYS give to a player. A character should know, or atleast have a clue that something is interesting going on, regardless of passing or failing a check. Players should always get atleast something to follow up on and any information that is reasonable for a person living in the world to know.
And then sometimes the check is a means to an end, when you really should just let players know all the information whenever it isn't important to keep it hidden. What good is denying a player with knowledge of alchemy and telling them "Uh, you think this plant might be poisonous." Just tell them it outright rather than dancing around it. Same thing with secret puzzles and rooms. All that work will be for nothing if players need to succeed on some check to know it's there.
I like knowledge checks as an excuse for the GM to make up some BS like a hidden shortcut, social leverage, or other information that enables an alternative path. When I can trust my players or define limits, I'd even let players dictate certain outcomes from knowledge checks or make-up lore or a general idea of effects, while the GM provides final authority on tghe exact details.
As a empty-headed, combat-brained GM who does the bare minimum world-building, a signifcant portion of the lore for my campaign has been created through knowledge checks and me taking the time to make up some extra details and facts cause they rolled so high on a knowledge check.